[c-nsp] Cosmetic bug or unsupported NPE?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saku Ytti" <saku+cisco-nsp at ytti.fi>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cosmetic bug or unsupported NPE?


> On (2007-02-08 01:50 -0800), Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > I run 2 NPE300's in 7206VXR's, 2 uplinks and ibgp and getting full table
>
> As Gert already happily explained and perhaps you misread and didn't
notice
> the difference about 12.2 and 12.2S. Tt's comparing apples to oranges
> really, closer comparison would be to 12.1E really.
>

I am perfectly well aware of the differences and your deliberately ignoring
my
point.

The point is that not everyone running bgp on an NPE300 needs the additional
features in the service provider feature set.  Just because you do does not
mean that everyone else does.  So your FOS and just spreading FUD if you are
claiming that
NPE300 and NPE225 is going to be useless for full view bgp for everybody in
a short time due to
growth of the Internet bgp table.  I don't know if you did
claim that, but if so, you are FOS.  Gert wasn't even claiming that, by the
way,
he was only stating that for a certain instance - IPv6 - that 256MB would be
useless.

Claims like "256 MB ram NPEs will be useless for full views under BGP" are
just justifications
to ignore a perfectly good product.

Ted